It is represented here on this site and in the academic and popular literature by the lack of any coherent demonstration that Darwinian macro evolution ever took place. Now macro evolution did take place and no one is denying that here but there is no evidence for it happening by Darwinian processes or any other known natural processes.

For those who still think macrovolutionary processes have not or cannot be observed or examined experimentally, I suggest reading this essay by molecular biologist Art Hunt on his blog The RNA Underworld:

“Is macroevolution impossible to study (Part 2)?

Quote

The plant kingdom is many things – the basis of agriculture and civilization, a natural laboratory with a stupefying capability in organic synthesis, a source of untold numbers of pharmaceuticals, antimicrobials, herbals, and other chemical playthings, a fascinating range of biological form and function, and an eminently accessible subject for studies of evolution. Along the lines of the last two bullets, one of the more interesting aspects of plants is the range of growth habits that may be adopted. Among these are two sets of contrasting characteristics – annual or perennial, and herbaceous or woody. Differences in these characteristics are among the bases for classification of plant species. For this reason, but also because accompanying morphological differences can be quite considerable, evolutionary changes that involve transitioning between these states are macroevolutionary. Thus, it stands to reason that studying the means by these characteristics evolve amounts to experimental analysis of macroevolution, and understanding the underlying mechanisms constitutes an explanation of macroevolutionary processes.

The article goes on to describe work with the plant Arabidopsis thaliana in which mutaions to two genes resulted in dramatic changes to the plant’s reproductive growth habits, changes that would, if found in two different populations would place them in different higher taxa. In other words, small, microevolutionary processes can be observed to produce macroevolutionary types of changes.

Diffaxial informs me that he has been placed in moderation. Directed to Moderator Clive by Diffaxial:

Why have I been placed in moderation?

Directed to me in a single post by UB:

"So if you are, perhaps, a slow learner or have difficulty with modest conceptualizations..."

"I may have overlooked it given your pompous certainty..."

"I apologize for not being more empathetic to any special needs you might have."

"To be quite honest, up until your last post I simply assumed that you were just another materialist bigot..."

"I want you to know that I am more than willing to slow down for you..."

Earlier,

"The preceding thread is a monument to your ability to bullshit your way through a conversation."

Jerry earlier:

"This is a rather stupid statement and indicates a lack of understanding of the issues."

And, of course Stephen's multiple aspersions regarding my "irrationality" on the "self-correcting" thread, which I know you have followed.

I've made no personal comments to any participant here whatsoever. You cannot seriously have placed me in moderation due to the phrase "cow pies" (about as strong as "poopy head") after remaining silent on the above.

Once again, UD shows its stripes as a cowardly forum where participants hide behind the skirts of moderation.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

You move fast with your sock-puppets, I have to give you credit. It’s like a carnival act. I never seen such an amazing feat! It’s a lightnin’ fast sock puppet folks! Gather round! I recognize your style now right off the bat. Serendipity came on the scene the day after I banned beelzebub. Maybe give it a week next time? You should try to avoid getting my attention in the future, and just make comments here under the radar, and don’t insult Atom.

Right, Clive -- you knew it all along, which is why you waited five days to ban me.

You should have been able to figure it out, though -- I never attempt to disguise my style. I just change the name.

Deadman assesses Clive's performance:

Quote (deadman_932 @ June 03 2009,01:43)

:) In an open-debate forum (and without the ban-hammer in his sweaty little hands) I bet Clive would cry faster than Cornelius Hunter or John Baumgardner did...and they only lasted a few days.

Let me know when you decide to peek your head out of your safe little echo-chamber, Clivey.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

A corollary of Poes' Law is that it's often impossible to tell whether an ID supporter is being stupid or just dishonest. This is well illustrated by Clive's "defense" of his moderation decisions on two threads at UD (link, link). At first I thought he was just lying in order to avoid to save face, but then I noticed that he still doesn't understand how to use blockquotes, that he misses the point even when it's not to his advantage to do so, and that he produces locutions such as "Why would you be asking jerry a question I made about moderation?" The needle swung back sharply to "Stupid". In the end, I concluded that he is both stupid and dishonest. After reading the following, I think you'll agree:

Quote

213

Alan Fox05/30/20093:31 am

Jerry,

Why doesn’t Bob O’Hara post here any more? It is simply because he can’t. Ask Clive, he will confirm it.

He is far from the only one.

Why do you never venture to other sites where evolutionary biologists might dispute your assertion “that there is no evidence for macro evolution”?

Quote

232

Clive Hayden05/30/20096:59 pm

Alan Fox,

——”Jerry,Why doesn’t Bob O’Hara post here any more? It is simply because he can’t. Ask Clive, he will confirm it.”

Why would you be asking Jerry a question that I made about moderation?

Quote

265

Clive Hayden06/01/200912:53 am

Diffaxial,

——”No one is going to observe anything corresponding to those definitional cow pies.”

——”I’m still waiting, your hard blowing notwithstanding.”

This is why I put you in moderation.

Quote

266

serendipity06/01/20092:40 am

Clive,

By what standard do Diffaxial’s comments merit the imposition of moderation if the following insults by Upright Biped (all of which come from a single comment) do not?

Quote

So if you are, perhaps, a slow learner or have difficulty with modest conceptualizations… given your pompous certainty… I apologize for not being more empathetic to any special needs you might have… I simply assumed that you were just another materialist bigot… I am more than willing to slow down for you.

Quote

283

Alan Fox06/01/200910:34 am

Quote

232

Clive Hayden05/30/20096:59 pm wrote:

Alan Fox,

——”Jerry,Why doesn’t Bob O’Hara post here any more? It is simply because he can’t. Ask Clive, he will confirm it.”

Why would you be asking Jerry a question that I made about moderation?

I was pointing out to Jerry, who seemed unaware of the fact, that Bob O’Hara no longer posts here because he is banned.

If you recall, you refused to rescind the ban, notwithstanding Barry Arrington’s new moderation policy because you said Bob had been rude about UD at AtBC. I searched, but couldn’t find a post of Bob’s that was insulting to individuals, and wondered if you could give an example. You refused, claiming to be too busy.

Hope that clarifies my previous comment.

Quote

295

Clive Hayden06/01/20096:09 pm

Alan Fox,

I didn’t claim to be too busy to answer you about Bob O’Hara. You can look through his threads over at AtBC same as I can.

Quote

296

serendipity06/01/20096:32 pm

Clive,

According to Barry Arrington, comments made on other blogs do not disqualify a person from commenting here at UD:

CannuckianYankee writes:“I’m just wondering Clive, Let’s say a person such as, oh, PZ Meyers wanted to post here and he kept his language cordial and non-insulting, would he be welcome to post? I would be interested in reading what he has to say without all the hyperbole that is a part of his language in his own blog. I might enjoy seeing how others here would challenge him.”

I’ll answer that. If PZ — or anyone else — came here and minded his manners, he would be more than welcome. I’m not holding my breath though, because PZ does not appear to be able to rise above adolescent name calling.

According to Barry, Bob O’H is “more than welcome” as long as he “minds his manners” here.

Are you overriding Barry’s stated policy? If so, then on what basis?

Quote

serendipity,

The moderation policy as stated by Barry is consistently being applied by me, for it pertains to the particular circumstances of what constitutes someone being “moderated” for someone who already posts here, or may come to post here anew. But there is a difference in what constitutes placing someone in “moderation” who already posts here freely, and what constitutes taking someone off the blacklisted list. In Bob O’Hara’s case, he’s not “moderated”, for he’s already been blacklisted in the past. I can re-examine whether he should be taken off the blacklisted status, which was not enumerated by Barry at all, notice. And on that score, what he said at AtBC tells me that I should not take him off the blacklisted status, for such disrespect would likely be perpetuated here. Notice, on this account of what constitutes taking someone off the blacklisted status, was not at all mentioned by Barry, thus, I am not inconsistent with the moderation policy.

As far as “moderating” Diffaxial, his comments did deserve a placement in moderation. You’re welcome to point me to others whom you feel deserve to also be placed in moderation status, and I will consider it.

Quote

Clive Hayden writes:

Quote

The moderation policy as stated by Barry is consistently being applied by me…But there is a difference in what constitutes placing someone in “moderation” who already posts here freely, and what constitutes taking someone off the blacklisted list. In Bob O’Hara’s case, he’s not “moderated”, for he’s already been blacklisted in the past.

Clive,

Barry’s stated moderation policy makes no such distinction:

Quote

I’ll answer that. If PZ — or anyone else — came here and minded his manners, he would be more than welcome. I’m not holding my breath though, because PZ does not appear to be able to rise above adolescent name calling.

Note that “anyone else” is welcome. No qualification; no “unless they’ve been blacklisted”.

Quote

And on that score, what he said at AtBC tells me that I should not take him off the blacklisted status, for such disrespect would likely be perpetuated here.

Your prognostications are irrelevant. The policy states that “anyone else” is “more than welcome”. It does not say “unless the moderator suspects that disrespect will ‘likely’ occur.”

Quote

As far as “moderating” Diffaxial, his comments did deserve a placement in moderation.

If they did, then so did Upright Biped’s (and the comments of many others on this blog). Since you have evidently given the others the benefit of the doubt and left them out of moderation, I recommend that you equalize the situation by removing Diffaxial from moderation as well.

Quote

serendipity,

——”Barry’s stated moderation policy makes no such distinction:”

Which was exactly my point, it doesn’t even speak to taking someone off the blacklisted list. Tell me, oh serendipity, what Barry’s criteria is for taking someone off that list who has already been banned? Hmmm?

Quote

Clive writes:

Quote

Which was exactly my point, it doesn’t even speak to taking someone off the blacklisted list.

Exactly. Instead, it says that “PZ — or anyone else” is “more than welcome”:

Quote

I’ll answer that. If PZ — or anyone else — came here and minded his manners, he would be more than welcome.

Let me know when you’ve located the phrase “unless they have been blacklisted” in the passage above. I have been through it word by word and I’m quite sure that it’s not there.

Quote

serendipity,

——”Let me know when you’ve located the phrase “unless they have been blacklisted” in the passage above. I have been through it word by word and I’m quite sure that it’s not there.”

Exactly right.

Quote

I’m glad you agree. When will you be removing Bob O’H from the blacklist?

Quote

serendipity,

——”I’m glad you agree. When will you be removing Bob O’H from the blacklist?”

Not until you explain what constitutes taking someone off the blacklist from Barry’s stated moderation policy.

Quote

Clive,

Barry’s policy doesn’t mention people who are blacklisted. It also doesn’t mention Methodists, women and amputees.

By your faulty logic, you should conclude that Methodists, women and amputees aren’t welcome at UD.

Now do you see your mistake?

Quote

Serendipity,

No, I don’t see a mistake because there is no mistake. Being an amputee, Methodist, or a woman is not what got ol’ Bob O’H blacklisted, and neither will being any of those things get him out of being blacklisted. I’m still waiting for your knowledge of what is required to remove someone from that list.

It's like talking to a rock. A dishonest rock.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

djmullen: You wrote “You’re probably upset that the article points out that, “relieve his necessities if required”, may be a homosexual reference. You may be upset by that, but you shouldn’t be surprised.”

Mullen, if you try any more amateur Freudianism about me, I will ban you from this list.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Ack! I forgot to add this after posting in the UD thread the other day:

Quote (didymos @ June 27 2009,04:56)

Bannination Alert!

So, Clive has been getting pissy at JayM for being unsupportive and not validating enough:

Quote

Clive Hayden

06/26/2009

2:09 pm

JayM,

——”I don’t argue against ID, Clive, I argue against poor arguments from ID supporters. That’s far more supportive of the eventual goal of making ID credible than is participating in an echo chamber where criticism of people on “our side” is strongly discouraged.”

You never have any arguments in favor of ID. Never. All I ever see from you are arguments against ID. It doesn’t matter that you posit them in terms of “constructive criticism” and “just wanting to help”. If you really want to help, then make some of your own arguments in favor of ID, instead of always criticizing others who make actual ID arguments. Otherwise, your pretense is exposed.

Regardless of whether JayM is legit, Clive is avoiding a serious problem: exactly what arguments can be marshaled in favor of ID? Other than all the ones that have been utterly discredited as pseudoscientific, woo-infused bullshit, that is.

But Clive does have a point, even if he lacks the vocabulary best suited to expressing it: JayM could very well be an ID concern troll. Of course, the irony is that ID and UD would be infinitely better served by a single concern troll than it is by every "supportive" poster on UD put together and JayM seems to get this:

Quote

You, too, are part of the problem. Real scientists debate the issues with each other. Here at UD, you show more concern over loyalty to the cause than to the content of the discussions.

If you spent more time policing the quality and accuracy of the posts by some of the regulars here, rather than in questioning the motives of those who are actually interested in making real progress, UD might fulfill its potential as a forum for serious discussion of intelligent design.

Surprisingly, Clive ignored that open provocation (DaveTard he is not, to the detriment of us all :( ) and contented himself with a rather anemic "Are too!" response which JayM found amusing:

Quote

JayM

06/26/2009

6:32 pm

Clive Hayden @488

You’re assuming too much, Clive. I started posting here because I got tired of hearing the old “ID says nothing about the nature of the designer” dodge. That and similar arguments from ID supporters who significantly overstate the case for ID, as it stands now, pose a major problem for those of us who want to treat ID as science.

I’m not assuming too much. You’re not fooling anyone.

Clive, baby, if I wanted to fool someone I’d go to a venue where that poses an actual challenge.

Now how about addressing the substance of my posts above?

Oh snap!

Sadly that "snap" was actually the sound of fracturing camel spine. JayM is now an ex-poster:

Quote

494

Clive Hayden

06/26/2009

6:43 pm

JayM,

I won’t tolerate baby talk. You’re presence here has been one of deceit the entire time, and I’m done with letting you have the opportunity to continue.

Clive Hayden: He'll make weak puns at you and won't let you post at UD anymore.

Clive Hayden: Not so much the Wielder of The Ban-Hammer as he is the Largely Ineffectual Brandisher of the Hollow Plastic Whack-a-Mole Mallet.

Clive Hayden: Ghost Hunter. ID Supporter.

(edited for minor corrections)

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

I have a feeling that Excession has been banned, or at the very least been put on moderation, never to return.

Quote

60Clive Hayden07/01/20094:54 pm

Excession,

Are you trying to vilify me? I don’t want that website linked, not because it exposes a moderation policy, but because most of those people have been banned, and I do not want to give them an audience here. You’re welcome to join them if you want, just keep up your tactics.

I’ve decided to stop posting on this thread and this forum. It’s the nature of this type of “discussion” between entrenched positions to sometimes turn negative, bordering on hostile. I point a finger back at myself when I say that, but either way it’s something I shouldn’t engage in.I encourage those who know how to keep a discussion civil and constructive to do so, and not be swayed when lesser people try to hijack the debate for the amusement of provoking a reaction. As for the those, perhaps you serve some useful purpose in your real lives and this is just your ugly side, one of which we all have.Personally, I shouldn’t be taking time from other pursuits to engage in this, and I don’t feel good after arguing that much.I’m describing mostly myself, not this forum. I think UD is great, and I’ll continue to read it. But if I’m tempted to open my mouth I’ll have to ask Clive to ban me.(Sorry for interrupting this thread with my irrelevant personal statement.)

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

I’ve decided to stop posting on this thread and this forum. It’s the nature of this type of “discussion” between entrenched positions to sometimes turn negative, bordering on hostile. I point a finger back at myself when I say that, but either way it’s something I shouldn’t engage in.I encourage those who know how to keep a discussion civil and constructive to do so, and not be swayed when lesser people try to hijack the debate for the amusement of provoking a reaction. As for the those, perhaps you serve some useful purpose in your real lives and this is just your ugly side, one of which we all have.Personally, I shouldn’t be taking time from other pursuits to engage in this, and I don’t feel good after arguing that much.I’m describing mostly myself, not this forum. I think UD is great, and I’ll continue to read it. But if I’m tempted to open my mouth I’ll have to ask Clive to ban me.(Sorry for interrupting this thread with my irrelevant personal statement.)

Too bad about Scott. He started out posting reasonable, if somewhat condescending comments. We'll see if he can stay away or if this turns into a frilly shirted nadios!

——”If you cannot imagine how these versus could be used as evidence of a flat earth in the centre of the universe, then you have no imagination.”

You would certainly need a lot of imagination to see it your way.

——”In light of the above quote from you, I accuse you of LYING Barb, I am calling you a LIAR! Flat out, demanding that you tell the truth, or stand up as THE ULTIMATE source of all knowledge on the stuff you claim to KNOW!”

Goodbye.

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Be respectful, I’ll only tell you this once. Don’t deride others here.

I somehow doubt StephenB or Gordon are being held to the same standard of behavior. I guess I'm just being selectively hyperskeptical, though. Still...

OK, Cliveykins, you like teh quotes, so I'll give you some:

Quote

We ought to see far enough into a hypocrite to see even his sincerity. -- G.K Chesterton

Quote

Not to be, but to seem, virtuous -- it is a formula whose utility we all discovered in the nursery. -- C. S. Lewis

Quote

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. -- Some 1st Century Jewish Guy

This one is excellent advice for ID as a whole:

Quote

Enough had been thought, and said, and felt, and imagined. It was about time that something should be done. -- C.S. Lewis

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

——”If you cannot imagine how these versus could be used as evidence of a flat earth in the centre of the universe, then you have no imagination.”

You would certainly need a lot of imagination to see it your way.

——”In light of the above quote from you, I accuse you of LYING Barb, I am calling you a LIAR! Flat out, demanding that you tell the truth, or stand up as THE ULTIMATE source of all knowledge on the stuff you claim to KNOW!”

Goodbye.

Followed, 26 minutes later, by

Quote

90

Barb

07/02/2009

2:51 pm

Nnoel, I thought you were gone. Guess not.

Guess not so.

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

——”David, stop baiting Gil. Just because he is not up to your intellectual level is no reason to take pot-shots. We don’t want him to flounce out again, do we?”

I’m debating whether to just moderate you or ban you. As it stands right now, you’re only moderated. I’ll check your upcoming comments, and may decide to ban you outright, but at the very least, I doubt you’ll get out of moderation anytime soon. If you apologize to Gil, I may consider taking you out of moderation, but it better sound sincere.

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio